Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

The inclusion of tax credits for renters in the budget was hailed by the Government and sections of the media as a big step forward for renters. At the same time as this tax credit is being introduced, though, is there any move being made to further curb rents? Is there going to be a rent freeze? No, there is not. It will not happen in every circumstance, but in a large number of cases, and the Minister and I know this, landlords will see renters coming, see the tax credit coming and see this as an opportunity to hike rent levels. The money at stake in the context of the tax credit, therefore, will not end up in the pockets of renters but in those of the landlords. This is what is going to happen in many cases. In fact, this is indicative of the general approach of the Government and the general effect of the budgetary measures, and not only in the context of renting, which is the subject we are discussing. There has been €4.1 billion in once-off spending by the Government in the context of this budget package. Where, though, are the measures that have been taken to end, cut across or even seriously challenge the profiteering that ordinary people see going on all around them? I am talking about what happens in the supermarkets, forecourts, garages, etc. Where are the anti-profiteering measures?

I believe the Government was forced to make concessions and that it went further in the budget than it had originally intended by way of concessions for several reasons. The key reason was the general mood in the country, which Government Deputies and Ministers were not unaware of. This led them to realise that they would be in trouble if they did not go further than intended. I also believe the protests that took place in Cork on 17 September and in Dublin on 24 September were a factor in the Government's thinking. It is not that the Government saw 20,000 people on the streets and was terrified by this, but it was sufficiently politically savvy enough to know that if it did not go further originally intended with budget measures, these protests would have had the potential to grow to 40,000, 60,000 and 80,000 people, and it did not want this. It remembered the experience of the water charges. These protests, and those who organised them, then can claim some degree of credit for forcing the Government to go further than it had intended.

To bring this matter back to the question of the tax credits for rent, but also the other concessions made, we can see how what was trumpeted as something that would put money into people's pockets has ended up boosting the profits of supermarkets, big energy companies and the income of landlords in this case. I am for real rent controls, but if what the Government is doing is introducing a tax credit for renters, then the least the Government can do is to introduce it for the lowest-paid workers as well. The budget excludes them because the tax credit for tenants in private rental accommodation does not apply to those whose incomes are sufficiently low that they are not subject to income tax. The Government will respond that those who do not pay income tax cannot get a tax credit. The idea of a tax credit, however, according to the Government's messaging was to give renters a break. If renters are being given a break, then it should and must also apply to the lowest-paid workers who do not pay sufficient income tax to avail of the tax credit in the context of the rules the Government has laid down. That is the gist of this amendment. I am not happy with the proposal as it stands. We are for real rent controls, and if we do not have real rent controls, then the tax credit is like a leaky bucket.

If the Minister is to do it that way, the least he can do is include the lowest paid workers in the scheme, and that is in the amendment.

See this speech in context